Unlike nearly all of the campaign rhetoric leading up to the Nov. 2 midterm election, the preliminary report from the deficit-reduction commission, released the other day, contained some specifics and some large doses of reality.

As soon as it was released, the report was attacked by liberal Democrats opposed to any reduction to entitlement spending. It also was criticized by conservative Republicans opposed to any tax increases. For that reason alone, the plan deserves serious consideration.

With both parties opposing it, the plan must be reasonably balanced, meaning the pain is shared by all. That’s a good start.

The Nov. 2 election saw many victorious candidates preaching fiscal responsibility and the danger posed by ever-increasing federal debt. The sincerity of those candidates should now be judged by their reactions to the deficit-reduction plan.

One of the strengths of the plan, released early, because of fears of leaks, by Erskine Bowles, a former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton, and Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, is that it puts everything on the table. There are no sacred cows left untouched. The pain, and that’s what is required, would be spread to everyone.

That means that the plan proposes reducing spending on defense, Social Security and Medicare. It has to; that’s where most of the money goes.

It also proposes simplifying the tax code, as well as reducing tax rates in exchange for eliminating most tax exemptions or deductions, including the popular mortgage interest deduction, at least for mortgages over $500,000.

Most Americans understand that the tax code’s thousands of pages contain many loopholes and special breaks inserted by lawmakers financially supported by special interests. Making the tax code more fair is a worthwhile objective. And simplification also would reduce the time and effort necessary to comply with the tax code.

Military spending is rightly targeted because the defense budget represents about half of all federal discretionary spending. And the dramatic increases in spending since 2001 are unsustainable.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently proposed some fairly modest reductions to military spending, and even that effort is being fought by defense contractors worried about profits, and lawmakers concerned about defense industry jobs in their districts and states. So trimming some weapons procurement, reducing military personnel in Europe and Asia by one-third, as just some of the proposed cuts, will not be easy.

Social Security changes, such as raising the cap on taxable income and a very gradual increase in the retirement age, also are proposed. And military health care, which has risen from $19 billion to $50 billion in the past decade, also is on the cutting block with proposals to impose premiums and raise co-pays for military retirees.

The deficit-reduction plan also would revisit health care, and produce savings, as well as malpractice reforms, that could go well beyond what is likely to come from the health care reform plan passed by Congress.

Nearly everybody will find something not to like in the Bowles-Simpson plan. But unlike most of what we hear from Washington, it is a serious proposal that recognizes the serious threat that unsustainable government spending poses to the United States.

How Congress and the public react will say a lot about the future of the United States and our political system’s ability to face serious challenges.